D. A. DESAI, N. H. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the States appeal against the respondent who was convicted of an offence under sec. 16 (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate 8 Court Ahmedabad but whose conviction had come to be set aside by the City Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1974. The respondent had been sentenced to undergo S. 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/in default to undergo further S. I. for three months by the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE case as made out against the respondent by the Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was that on 24th April 1974 the respondent had sold 12 cups of prepared tea weighing 14 mililitres which substance was found to have contained saccharine and orange II coal tar dye. As per the prescribed standards this food was adulterated and so he was prosecuted by the Food Inspector and as set out above he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate but came to be acquitted by the learned City Sessions Judge. The only point which found favour with the learned City Sessions Judge was that the original cornplainant who claimed to be the Food Inspector on the relevant date of taking of the sample was not a Food Inspector as he did not fall within the qualifications of Food Inspector as laid down in Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the proviso appended to the Rule 8 was not attracted.

( 3 ) MR. G. T. Nanavati the learned Advocate appearing for the State urged that in view of the admitted facts the learned City Sessions Judge had committed an error in interpreting the proviso Rule 8 and in that view of the matter he urged that there judgment of the Sessions Court be set aside and the case be remanded to that Court for disposal in accordance with law.

( 4 ) THERE was no dispute before the learned City Sessions Judge that the complainant Food Inspector did not hold any of the qualifications referred to in clauses (1) to (iv) of the Rule 8 of the Rules. But on behalf of the complainant it was urged that he fell squarely within the proviso appended to Rule 8 in so far as the complainant was appointed as a Food Inspector by the State of Gujarat and the notification dated 17th September 1966 in that contention was published in the Government Gazette. The said notification has been set out verbatim by the learned City Sessions Judge in paragraph 7 of his judgment. It is not even controverted before us that the complainant was appointed as a Food Inspector by the Government of Gujarat as per the said notification The contention therefore remains confined to the consideration of the proviso which reads as under: provided that a person who is a Food Inspector on the date of commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules 1968 may continue to hold office as such subject to the terms and conditions of service applicable to him. even though he does not fulfil the qualification laid down in clauses (i) to (iv ). This Rule 8 together with clauses (1) to (iv) and the proviso had come to substitute the original Rule No. 8 and this substitution came into effect on 8. 7. 68 as per GSR No. 1533. Prior to this date the Rule 8 that was applicable was as follows : 3. Qualifications of a Food Inspector:-A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he (i) is a medical officer in charge of the health administration of a local area or (ii) is a graduate in medicine or a licentiate in medicine or (iii) is a holder of qualification in sanitary science registerable as an additional qualification by the State Medical Council or Health Officers Examination certificate or possesses qualifications prescribed by the respective State Governments for appointment of Sanitary Inspectors or health Inspectors: provided that for a period of four years from the date on which the Act takes effect persons whose qualifications training and experience are regarded by the State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document